Jump to content

Magazine Kit Reviews


viscount806x

Recommended Posts

Guys of the Aviation Press, could I make an appeal please. I find myself in slightly reduced circumstances due to retirement and most of you are no longer getting subs from me. I have modelling mags going back to Pontius Pilot (sic) kept mainly for the historical info articles and kit reviews. I have almost given up on all the current magazines due to the paucity of the former and fewer and fewer of the latter, reviews seemingly being done purely by looking at the sprues and not actually building the kits. An exception to these two moans would be Scale Aviation Modeller and Model Aircraft Monthly (or whatever it is called this week). All the others I have ditched, I'm just fed up with getting kit catalogues each month. Have a look back at Airfix Magazine in the 1970s or Scale Aircraft Modelling in the Hall/McEvoy eras (don't bother now, that has gone for a burton as well). They actually built those models up for review. Perhaps the current mags are what 'the market' wants, in which case, I'll just shut up and save my pension for the additional loft insulation.

Happy Christmas all. Humbug. A recent poll incidentally resulted in the stunning news that 30% of British men would like to spend Christmas on holiday in a country which didn't celebrate Christmas!

Nige

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well - as one mag contributor we're trying!

This year so far I've written up three in-depth build reviews for Military in Scale - Revell Hawk, Hasegawa 109F-2 and Revell He111 (all 1:32 scale) and am currently working on two more...

Trying to highlight any build issues/gotcha's as I go - along with some simple improvements and any howlers where found - so the age of the build review isn't dead. We're also trying to include as many techniques as we can along the way.

I do agree though that it's easy for magazines to become mere 'product catalogs' - but don't think it's that bad at the moment?

And, yes, I used to do build reviews for Alan in the old Scale Aircraft Modelling days :)

Iain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree with Iain that MIS is pretty good at "proper" reviews (occasionally spread over multiple issues, as they are so detailed). Airfix Model World is good as well. Just take a look at the Gnat build in the current issue. Although, I am not too keen on the varied subject matter in AMW and may not re-subscribe as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a very good point Dave...

The stuff I used to knock out in a few days/week for Scale Aircraft Modelling I'd hate to see in print these days.

They were very much 'rush jobs' to get a feel for the build and report on that. The small black and white images were *always* flattering to the review models.

I can remember building a Contrail vac Pe 8 bomber in three days - now it probably takes me at least 6 - 8 weeks for an average build - but the reviews are also a *lot* more comprehensive IMHO.

Iain

Edited by Iain (32SIG)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fed up with kit reviews? Write your own and submit them.

As a model mag contributor (armour) I can safely say that writing the type of review you want takes a LOT of time and trying to fit it all in with domestic life and work is not easy. You have to frequently stop in the middle of construction to take pictures relevant to the article and although I'm lucky enough to have a permanent set up for photography it's still up in the loft and that takes time to sort out. Others don't always have the luxury of that and have to clear the model desk to set up for the pictures.

Sorry if my answer is a bit terse but I often see posts like this where magazine contribitors are frequently slated on the quality of articles, all I ask is that you understand that we don't all have the free time available. I would LOVE to spend all day modelling and writing about it but real life is'nt like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, I think, that we've become obsessed with "finish" to the point where other things like accuracy and buildability become secondary. perhaps model mags just refelct this, or perhaps they create this, but it does seem to me that theres a preference for models that basically photograph well becuase they look nice.

I'd just like to see basic reviews that tell me a few things: What's in the box; how does it build; and accuracy in the sense of length, width, shape etc. Now read on...

...I'd like reviewers to be honest about how much they know about the subject: I can respect anyone who says, "I don't really know much about subject X so I can't comment on its accuracy, but the kit fits well" etc etc. What makes my blood boil is the old " I dont know much about subject X but it looks like an X to me". Its become such a cliché of the modern review.

If I were to write a review of the HobbyBoss F8F bearcat I would be glowing in praise for its fit and recessed and sharp detail, but scathing of its shoddy, poor accuracy which I can prove and back up because I know the aircraft and I have pics to support said criticism. Of course it "looks" like a Bearcat, most models very rarely do not look like the real thing, its just that it looks like a particluarly fat winged tubby Bearcat.

So when I read these words in a review I must either conclude that the editor has been at work, or the reviewer is just repeating this oft used phrase because he or she thinks thats what a reviewer should write if they dont know much about the subject, but want to come across as knowledgable. Just be honest - no one knows everything about everything.

I've been pretty outspoken about certain magazines attitudes towards "always glowing" reviews of everything in the recent past so I wont blather on about it.

Just my opinion of course.

Jonners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fed up with kit reviews? Write your own and submit them.

As a model mag contributor (armour) I can safely say that writing the type of review you want takes a LOT of time and trying to fit it all in with domestic life and work is not easy. You have to frequently stop in the middle of construction to take pictures relevant to the article and although I'm lucky enough to have a permanent set up for photography it's still up in the loft and that takes time to sort out. Others don't always have the luxury of that and have to clear the model desk to set up for the pictures.

Sorry if my answer is a bit terse but I often see posts like this where magazine contribitors are frequently slated on the quality of articles, all I ask is that you understand that we don't all have the free time available. I would LOVE to spend all day modelling and writing about it but real life is'nt like that.

Whilst I can understand that it is not an easy task to write and submit reviews, I feel you may have missed the point the OP was trying to make. It's not his fault you don't have the time to be a full time article writer, if you wish to write and submit articles in your own time then so be it.

I think the point that is trying to be made is that some of these publications are far from cheap so why should people pay good money for something which is nothing more than a manufacturers catalogue? If you are a paying customer you have the right to challenge the quality of the material you are receiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are a paying customer you have the right to challenge the quality of the material you are receiving.

Agreed. And that's why threads like this can give really useful feedback to those that contribute to the various mags!

Have to agree with Jonners - don't like to see very general reviews that say nothing more than looks nice in the box, lots of detail, 'another masterpiece' from, etc., etc. without building it, or discussing merits and potential downfalls from a knowledgeable perspective. I'll use the Trumpeter 1:32 Lightnings as a case in point - there are some glowing reviews out there of the box contents when released - without any coverage of the build issues, or accuracy.

With regard to subject knowledge it's become easier for the reviewer in some ways because if you don't have specific knowledge of a specific subject there's a whole new research tool out there - called the interweb I believe! ;)

I'd like to think I have a fairly good knowledge of a lot of things aeronautical - but one reviewer cannot possibly know everything about everything - but there are now so many tools and forums out there to assist.

I can recall when Hasegawa's first 1:48 Phantoms were released (1984?) and I did a couple for review. One, an F-4J IIRC, had instructions that specified a blue nose for a specific airframe - I wrote that I could not corroborate that as I couldn't find any pictures showing this, so I painted it black. One month after publication I got a nice letter from California complete with a photograph (anyone remember letters and 35mm prints??) showing it was indeed blue. I was mortified!

So, as far as commenting on errors, fixes etc.. - we try!

But going back to OPs thoughts - I understand what you mean - you used to get a dozen, or so, reviews each month covering the kit and the actual build with a small shot of the result. That would be great but to get them built to the standards I believe readers expect (I'm a believer that modelling mags should not only review these kits - but should in some way inspire/encourage readers to have a go) it would be difficult to cover so many models so quickly.

Anyone remember the mag (American I think??) that built all review kits, straight from the box, no paint, filler etc.? Seemed like a good idea but the content was very, well, sterile I guess...

Iain

Edited by Iain (32SIG)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fed up with kit reviews? Write your own and submit them.

As a model mag contributor (armour) I can safely say that writing the type of review you want takes a LOT of time and trying to fit it all in with domestic life and work is not easy. You have to frequently stop in the middle of construction to take pictures relevant to the article and although I'm lucky enough to have a permanent set up for photography it's still up in the loft and that takes time to sort out. Others don't always have the luxury of that and have to clear the model desk to set up for the pictures.

Sorry if my answer is a bit terse but I often see posts like this where magazine contributors are frequently slated on the quality of articles, all I ask is that you understand that we don't all have the free time available. I would LOVE to spend all day modelling and writing about it but real life is'nt like that.

Agree 100% there Andy. I reckon if a fraction of those who spent more time moaning on forums actually applied that time and effort to writing an article, they might get the magazines they want.

As for magazines going back to how they were 30 years ago - nice idea but each generation brings their own slant and the mags are a reflection of the current zeitgeist, that's just the way it goes. But again we go back to a case of if thats what people want, write it - and while this no reflection on Nige who raises a good point about actual builds rather than visual assessments - after so much "why should I have to contribute, its up to others to give me the material I want to read and I have the right to complain", yeah you do tiger, just like I have the right to zone-out.

And yeah, that sounds terse but what the heck, its Christmas and I'm feeling charitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"why should I have to contribute, its up to others to give me the material I want to read and I have the right to complain"

No one is asking you to contribute. If people pay for something they expect something. Pack in writing and I guess there will be nothing to pay for and no complaints. Simples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fed up with kit reviews? Write your own and submit them.

As a model mag contributor (armour) I can safely say that writing the type of review you want takes a LOT of time and trying to fit it all in with domestic life and work is not easy. You have to frequently stop in the middle of construction to take pictures relevant to the article and although I'm lucky enough to have a permanent set up for photography it's still up in the loft and that takes time to sort out. Others don't always have the luxury of that and have to clear the model desk to set up for the pictures.

Sorry if my answer is a bit terse but I often see posts like this where magazine contribitors are frequently slated on the quality of articles, all I ask is that you understand that we don't all have the free time available. I would LOVE to spend all day modelling and writing about it but real life is'nt like that.

I have to say the the big problem with certain magazine reviews is not the quality of the articles but rather the glossing over of often serious errors and omissions in kits and that's an editorial decision and not one taken by individual reviewers, who can only follow the guidelines they are given.

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say the the big problem with certain magazine reviews is not the quality of the articles but rather the glossing over of often serious errors and omissions in kits and that's an editorial decision and not one taken by individual reviewers, who can only follow the guidelines they are given.

Andy

Eh?

I've *never* had editorial guidance to gloss over anything - or had copy edited to remove criticism? And I'm not aware of any prevalence of that?

Iain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm

There are so many magazines, loads to cater for specific modelling genre's, aircraft, AFV's, the marine ones tend to be RC :crying: etc.....

I tend to look at multi subject magazines and while there are 'new products' & quick 'in the box reviews', I think there is generally a decent number of really in depth reviews balanced with some short reviews of builds. At least there are in the mags I read.

I dunno, if you want to read stuff I guess I'mm thinking there are magazines for all tastes and then there's loads of stuff on the web, just look at some of the builds on this very site, newbies, beginners, talented amateurs, through to semi & professional modellers. So if you can't find something to read, maybe one should go and build a model instead?

Cheers

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say the the big problem with certain magazine reviews is not the quality of the articles but rather the glossing over of often serious errors and omissions in kits and that's an editorial decision and not one taken by individual reviewers, who can only follow the guidelines they are given.

Andy

I can't agree with that statement as I can honestly say that anything I have written in a review has been published word for word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh?

I've *never* had editorial guidance to gloss over anything - or had copy edited to remove criticism? And I'm not aware of any prevalence of that?

Iain

Wasn't suggesting that you personally have, MIS (and MilMod for that matter) have always been good in pointing out warts and all in their reveiws. Other mags aint so good, Trumpy 1/32 Lightning and 1/48 Su-24 reviews come to mind, did the reveiwers really not see the problems?

Andy

Edited by andym
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is asking you to contribute. If people pay for something they expect something. Pack in writing and I guess there will be nothing to pay for and no complaints. Simples.

I wasn't talking about me, that's why I put it in parenthesis, in fact the reason I got into writing in the early 90s was because I was fed up with reading articles that seemed to be mired in 1960s techniques and attitudes when the modelling world had moved on.

And sure, people have the right to complain about something they pay for, the difference with model magazines is that, by and large, they are made up by their own fellow modellers who, if they adopted the same "aint my problem, someone else can fix it" we'd have no magazines.

I have to say the the big problem with certain magazine reviews is not the quality of the articles but rather the glossing over of often serious errors and omissions in kits and that's an editorial decision and not one taken by individual reviewers, who can only follow the guidelines they are given.

I can honestly say that never happened to me either nor was I ever guided to "glossed up" (sic) a review or article to appease an advertiser.

Nige mentioned the built-up review models in SAM - all I can remember are blurry, underexposed photos of a model dumped on an office desk as an afterthought. I'm so glad todays model mags have moved away from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Alpha

Sorry I couldn't resist being cheeky, no insult intended. :kissing2:

On a slightly more sensible note...I do nautical and space so I tend to read non genre specific mags. I still usually get something out of reviews of other subjects, transferable skills and all that. But I could grumble that non of the magazines really matches my areas of interests, but I won't coz if there was more to read I would get sidetracked form the real objective...building models...

Keeeeep modelling!

Cheers

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trumpy 1/32 Lightning and 1/48 Su-24 reviews come to mind, did the reveiwers really not see the problems?

Andy

I suspect not Andy!

In my experience a lot of things don't actually become apparent until you actually start 'bolting' something together and comparing with photos (and not drawings - unless they have a *really* good provenance)... Which, I guess, takes us back to the OPs comments.

Iain

Edited by Iain (32SIG)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...